evolution, Darwin, religion, other musings

Recently i have been studying Darwin, trying to figure out what made him tick. This was a conflicted man, so it seems.

Does anyone know about his life? i know he was married, he had panic attacks, does anyone know where he was buried?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Anyone with even a little common sense can see evolution is true.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

So you too admit to the flaws in observation of Darwin's theory?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The natives are getting restless.
I calculated a 100% chance of abusive speech and uncivilized commentary at the onset of the discussing. It's forseeable that if the conversation continues it will progress to a breakdown of accepted social behavior.

Motive is entirely relevent. Donald Patten had some words on the subject. I'll attempt to find them and outline them. A PM should surfice?

 

Well don't tell me, river-wind, tell them. I beliee that I've outlined already that his predictions did not come true. the birds were never auhmented to that which he predicted.

 

Saquist,

It seems better than before, it used to be 120%. They should learn more about the man that started this all.

I am sure this is widely known, but i never seen it or would have assumed that quote possible from just reading posts here.

He does not seem so bad after all.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Westminster Cathedral Abbey (sheesh), next to Isaac Newton.

He had a long and apparently happy marriage to the love of his life, raised children on a country farm, and devoted his time to the study of barnacle and orchid taxonomy and related investigations (he was one of the first to recognize the importance of earthworms and similar breakdown organisms). He had some kind of health problems, dating to shortly after his return from the Beagle voyage, and was cautious to the point of paranoia about his big theory - he knew what he had and what he was facing, there.

If you want to follow Saquist's style and use the personality or imagined emotional conflicts of a long-dead theoretician to discredit the modern establishment of their theory, Newton would be a better target. He was a seriously odd, "conflicted" man. And his theory of gravity has been completely disproven. So why are we allowing ourselves to be deluded into learning bullshit like Newton's Laws of Motion ? Just because some scientists say they are very important ?

 

Of course. No human being, or his ideas, will be 100% correct. The point is that Darwin's theory about the mechanism of evolution via natural (later modified by his own hand to include also sexual) selection were a hell of a lot more accurate that the earlier ideas, like Lamarck's concept of acquired traits.

And I pointed out that the predictions that he made that were wrong have been discarded. No modern biologist believes that finches will speciate in under 100 years.

However, there were a lot of predictions that turned out to be true, such as the flower w/ the extremely long nectar reservoir prompting Darwin to predict that we would find a moth w/ a tongue at least 30cm long. At the time, many thought the idea was absurd.

http://notexactlyrocketscience.word...ators-–-a-case-study-in-punctuated-evolution/

 

No one here is speaking of speciation. Species change.
No one here least of all myself, is saying that they're were not practical application to his prediction.

That's just so that you understand. You may reiterate this again to me if you like. But I will not contradict you. But you'll begin to note that it is not possible to contradict the facts.

Nothing shows that these changes cross over the boundaries macro evolution describes. It is infact unsubstaniate.

 

btw:

Have you thought of any yet?

We need a reason for thinking that the accumulation of evolutionary changes observed in small, faster -reproducing, unicellular organisms would not occur in larger, slower-reproducing, multicellular ones,

despite the identity of the earlier stages of the process.

They start out the same, but the unicells keep evolving and the multicells, we are supposed to think, will not.

Why not?

 

I will later tonight, i am very busy right now.

Great. Do you find it the least bit interesting that his wife REAMINED a Christian to the very end and Darwin himself was visited by what woman on his death bed on a number of acassions?

His family was also going to bury him NOT in Westminster Cathedral but exactly where and wonder if it was HIS wish to be buried there?

Quit pussyfooting, i have links to back this stuff up, it is all public domain.

 

Nonsense. Scientists understand and know the definition of evolution, you don't.

More nonsense, these are topics that you don't understand.

Topped off with yet more nonsense, based on your ignorance of the subject matter, no less. Considering there are mountains of evidence in favor of evolution, that either you are unaware of or simply deny places evolution squarely in the category of theory. But, I didn't expect you to know the difference between a hypothesis and a theory.

That is because you know very little if anything at all of science, and place your entire life in the hands of faith. Hence, you are unable to comment at all on any scientific topic of any kind. You merely look the fool when doing so.

If you truly believe science is magic, you need to walk out of your cave.

Of course, the computer and internet connection you're currently using to access these boards isn't based on magic, but you are free to deny it.

 

Who's arguing with you? It doesn't make any difference to me where Darwin wanted to be buried, or whether his wife and the mother of his ten children was Anglican or Unitarian. What are you trying to say here?

I get the impression that if you found some manuscript from Darwin saying that he had changed his mind and his whole theory was a mistake caused by his falling away from God, you would regard that as evidence against the theory itself.

 

Saquist please explain exactly what YOU mean by macro evolution, and why (if) you don't believe in evolution.
Cheers.

 

Well...i dont know what to say. The main point is that his wife was smart enough for him to marry and have 10 kids with AND her opinion did not change. BUT there is the possibility he did. At the very least he did not think she was deluded.

This may be significant, what about the quote i posted?

i'm just saying...?

 

Isn't macro evolution the change of one species into another? Or was that only before speciation had been seen in the wild? Now that speciation has been seen, is macro evolution referring to the creation of new genera?

Why does evolution mean that a person can't believe in god? Many modern clergy see evolution as the method with which god created and continues to create living things.

But these are beside the point. Why does the authority of the author (or his wife) lend any credence to the argument itself?

 

I never said that, i said from the beginning that these are things I did not know. I always maintained that religion can be kept out of this topic.

You say many modern clergy, what about modern Scientists? So far it looks as though Darwin must have.

The last question i would ask is:

Would that also be viewed as an affirmation of creation? I mean generally.

I am writing this up fast, kind of preoccupied. I know it is getting OT

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I just found this really interesting.

 

I can't see the significance. What would it be ?

Many modern scientists are theists, Jewish and Christian and Hindu varieties I think predominate.

What is an affirmation of creation ?

 

I work with electricity and we study the THEORY of electricity.
But i'll tell you it sure hurts like hell when you get hit with 277 volts.